Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic commission conditions approval of 510 Steering fences, orders front iron fence trimmed to 4 feet
Summary
The Historic and Design Review Commission approved staff recommendations for 510 Steering’s installed fencing, requiring the front wrought‑iron fence be reduced to 4 feet and the privacy fence be modified so it does not extend past the front façade; the commission will follow up on a north-side fence ownership question.
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Historic and Design Review Commission Compliance and Technical Advisory Board voted Feb. 20, 2026, to support staff recommendations that require changes to fences installed at 510 Steering, finding the existing front wrought‑iron fence exceeds the board’s guidelines.
Staff told commissioners the project’s approved design called for a 3‑foot front wrought‑iron fence, and that the city’s guidelines allow front yard iron fences up to 4 feet. "The fence as it's installed at 5 feet 6 inches is not consistent with the guidelines," the case manager, Edward, said, adding that a 4‑foot fence would meet standards and remain eligible for administrative approval if modified accordingly.
The applicant, who joined the meeting virtually, said reducing the custom front fence would be a challenge and could require removing and remaking the piece, but indicated willingness to attempt compliance: "I will have to do that. We will have to take it out and see the — it'll be difficult, but I'll just have to figure it out if that's what the commission wants," the applicant said.
Staff recommended approval of two elements with stipulations: (1) reduce the rod‑iron front fence to no more than 4 feet in height and (2) modify the privacy fencing so it does not extend past the new building’s front facade on the north and south sides. Staff noted that if the applicant submitted the adjusted fence locations before work, those changes could qualify for administrative approval.
Commission discussion focused on whether the north‑side privacy fence sits on the applicant’s property or the adjacent lot; staff said the commission could act on the front and south fences and follow up about the north fence once property ownership was clarified. Chair noted the installed iron fence is currently out of compliance and urged the applicant to work with staff on next steps.
A motion to support staff recommendations, with a stipulation that the owner work with staff to clarify the north‑side fence situation, carried on a roll call vote (Davis, Garcia, Regard, Spiller, Fullerton, Vasquez, Sepulveda — all aye). The commission directed staff to follow up and confirmed certificates of appropriateness or action letters will be emailed within 10 days.
The applicant should coordinate with the case manager (Edward) on how to document the modified fence and whether the revisions can be approved administratively.
